Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MARKEY. On the amendment which is now pending, there is a 40- minute agreement on time, 20 minutes evenly divided. I am sorry. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. There has not yet been an agreement reached on time.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, as all who are listening are well aware, the Contract With America was intended as a full-scale, all-out attack upon the environment of our country. There was an agenda put together in the beginning of this Congress towards the goal of eviscerating most of the laws which have been placed upon the books over the last quarter of a century to protect the environment in our country. One of the primary assaults upon the environment was begun in the Committee on Commerce last year, culminating, in the fall, upon a Superfund reform bill introduced by the Republican Party. Its intent, for all intents and purposes, to gut the Superfund bill, to make it ineffective. The centerpiece, in their own words, of their Superfund gutting bill was to take hundreds of millions of dollars a year, billions of dollars, billions over the next decade, and to give money back to polluters, polluters who have already accepted responsibility for having polluted their own neighborhoods, for having ruined the water in their communities, for having led to the deaths of small children because of exposure to toxics, giving money not to the communities in order to help clean up but to the polluters themselves. Now, the centerpiece of this proposal is still embodied in the Republican appropriations bill. In it is included a provision taking $861 million over the next year and making it available to give back to polluters who already accepted responsibility for their pollution and their responsibility to clean it up. Now, here is how it works: If you happen to have been a polluter, congratulations to you. You may already have won millions of dollars in cash prizes from the Grand Old Party. The Ed McMahon polluters clearinghouse sweepstakes. Here is how it works. Just wait for this appropriations bill to pass, enacting reforms. Pretty soon the EPA Superfund prize van will pull up to your corporate headquarters and hand you a Federal Government taxpayer check, if you can identify yourself as a polluter. Here is how it works. First, is your toxic waste dump listed on the Superfund site on the national priorities list? In other words, that you are one of the worst polluters in America. You must answer yes to that question to qualify for this Federal money. Second, did you even incur cleanup costs since they introduced their bill last October? That is, once, if you were there on October 18 as a polluter, you qualify for this money. Third, was your liability attributable to activities which occurred prior to 1987? That is after the Superfund bill passed in 1981 so that in fact we knew that and you knew that the Superfund law was on the books, and have you accepted responsibility in a court-ordered, a court-ordered consent decree in which you have already agreed to accept liability to clean up the site yourself? If you qualify under all of those standards, then you are a grand prize winner as a polluter. You qualify for the $861 million a year, billions of dollars over the next decade, which can be and will be given out to polluters. Now, this, it seems to me, is an absurdity. We do not have $861 million a year for a new program to hand over to polluters when we are cutting Medicare, when we are cutting student loans, when we are cutting every other social program. We cannot have this program pile up to $6 and $8 billion over the next decade, gobbling up what limited resources we have as we target the 2002 for a balanced budget.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio very much for yielding to me. This provision has to be stricken from the Republican proposal, has to be cut out. That is what this amendment does. It just ensures that not only under the bill which the Republicans introduced last year, H.R. 2500, but under any bill which is ever introduced, we do not give money back to polluters who have already accepted court-ordered consent decree responsibility as to their responsibility to clean up the site. It makes no sense whatsoever. So this is a very simple proposal. It gets right at the heart of what it is that the Republicans want to propose as a reform of environmental laws, giving money to polluters. We have operated for the last 15 years under the notion of the polluter pays, if they are responsible. The Republican proposal transforms it into the taxpayer pays the polluter. We are so sorry, it is going to cost you money for having to clean up the mess you created in the community, this neighborhood nightmare, which has taken all the property in the neighborhood off of the tax rolls, which could have led to the deaths or the creation of disease in families within the community. That is their new notion. We take care of the polluters. So the Markey-Pallone-Borski amendment deletes this ability to be able to hand this money over to the polluters. It is a very clean, simple vote. As we go through the rest of the night, there will be attempts to take out one small attempt at doing it, last year's version, but it does not deal with any other version. The money stays there, all $861 million. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is going to seek to make an amendment which just says, well, we are not going to use H.R. 2500, last year's version, but it does not say anything about any other version, which is what the Markey amendment says. You cannot do it. It is impossible under the Markey amendment. The Boehlert amendment says, well, we got caught; we got caught off base. We do not want to have this on our record. So we are going to withdraw it. Let us wait until Bob Dole is President so he will not be vetoing this so we can just do it with the majority of the votes in the House and the Senate. We are going to pull it back right now. We got caught. But no way are we going to take out the $861 million. In no way are we going to put a limitation on it being used by other mechanisms to give rebates to polluters, no. We are going to take out that part of the Markey amendment. So this is a very clean, simple amendment that deals with the heart of the challenge to the Superfund program which for 12 years was under Republican control. Remember this tonight, my colleagues: Yes, it was passed by a Democratic Congress but Rita Lavell and Ann Gorsuch and a whole line of Republican administrators for 12 years, right up to 1993, had responsibility for it. Only in the last years has it been put in the hands of an administrator who is fully committed to its implementation. If this program was not as fully effective as it could have been, and we do believe it should be reformed, blame those Republican administrators, one of whom even went to jail in a contempt of Congress citation, for their lack of regard for our congressional intent. So this is at heart a vote on whether or not in fact we are going to keep to the soul of what the Superfund program was meant to achieve; that is, that those who were responsible must pay. And we are not going to use limited taxpayer dollars as a handout to them. As we go through this debate, Mr. Boehlert will attempt to take one small portion of it, one small attempt, the initial attempt, and to say, we are not going to use that route anymore, but make it impossible to have a straight up or down vote on whether or not any other attempt which the Republicans have contemplated can in fact be used to give this money over to polluters. I want everyone to understand this debate, as it unfolds, because it gets right at the heart of what we believe as Democrats should be the intent of this program, which is personal responsibility, personal and corporate responsibility. Those who created the messes should clean them up. Those who have accepted legal responsibility in the courts should clean them up. We should not have to turn to the taxpayers, tip them upside down, have $861 million over the next year and billions more in years after that used to clean up the messes which corporate executives are responsible for.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be limited to 10 minutes equally divided between the majority and minority.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For all of those who are listening, this is going to be a very simple up-or-down vote. This just flat out will prohibit the ability for any polluter to receive Federal funds if they have accepted the legal responsibility to cleanup the site. Otherwise, we are going to take the monies which we should be using to clean up orphan sites, to help out municipalities and we will be expending monies upon the work which the polluters themselves should be doing. Mr. Chairman, I again urge all Members very strongly who want to take 1 of the 10 most important environmental votes that will be cast in this Congress to vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment and to make sure that the Superfund Program is not turned on its head and a very large percentage of the money just being handed over to polluters that should be used for the sites that need the help in communities with the neighborhood nightmares that otherwise would not be cleaned up at all. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, what we have before us right now is the original Markey amendment on the Superfund rebate program to polluters, and what we have done is we have just taken the part of the amendment that the Members were deprived of being given the opportunity to vote upon earlier and taken that part of the bill and brought it out here to the floor so that we can make sure that in instances where companies that had accepted before courts the legal responsibility to clean up hazardous waste sites within communities, that they not be given rebates by the Federal taxpayer for the purposes of cleaning up those sites. It is a very simple concept: The polluter pays. The polluter who has gone before a court, who has been adjudicated or accepted voluntarily the responsibility of cleaning up the site should not be given taxpayers' dollars to do so. It is a simple concept. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] so that he may also speak to the merits of this issue.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in last year's appropriations bill the Republicans attacked the EPA and the Superfund Program, and they attempted to slash the Superfund Program by 25 percent. When President Clinton refused to go along because of our success in highlighting this issue, the President vetoed the bill. The Republicans, because of Superfund and other programs, shut the Government of the United States down twice because they wanted to see programs like Superfund gutted. The truth of the matter is that there were furloughed Superfund Program workers all over the country and delays in the cleanup of toxic waste sites all over our country. Now, in this bill the Republicans contend they are putting in $2.2 billion for Superfund. Sounds really great, but the truth is that this is really kind of a legislative sneak preview of coming attractions. But, like many Hollywood movie trailers, it is very deceptive, because while they are advertising that their bill is ``Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms,'' the truth is that their actual bill is more like ``Nightmare on Elm Street,'' because in reality the $862 million which they contend is being put in the bill is not going to be appropriated this year in this bill. They are not putting the money in. So, here they are today saying, well, we are going to add in an extra $860 million or so, but we are not putting it in this year; we are going to put it in sometime in the future. And by the way, when we put the money in, it is going to be to give rebates to polluters. That is right. Instead of the polluter who messed up a particular neighborhood paying to clean up the site, we, the American taxpayers, we are going to pay the polluter. Now, what kind of program is this? This is the Ed McMahon Polluters Rebate Sweepstakes program. That is right, the Ed McMahon Polluters Sweepstakes van pulls up in front of your corporate headquarters and announces that you may be a winner. If you have already been accused and accept responsibility for polluting and for cleaning up a hazardous waste site in your community, you may be eligible for million of dollars of taxpayers' money as the taxpayer pays the polluter for having cleaned up a site which they polluted. Rather than using these hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up orphan sites, to clean up sites that would not be cleaned up otherwise, no, the money in the Republican bill will be used to hand it over to the polluters. We must vote ``no'' on this proposal. It, in fact, represents just the opposite of where the American people want our Superfund Program to be headed. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. In last year's appropriations bill for VA-HUD-independent agencies, the Republicans attacked EPA and the Superfund Program. They tried to slash funding for Superfund by almost 25 percent. And, when President Clinton refused to go along with their radical proposals, they shut down the Government twice. They furloughed Superfund workers and delayed the cleanup of toxic waste sites in dozens of communities around the Nation, including several in Massachusetts. This year, instead of mounting a direct assault on the program's funding, the Gingrich Republicans are claiming to provide Superfund with $2.2 billion in funding, nearly a billion dollars more than they provided last year. But when you look at the bill--and especially when you look at the convoluted rule they have crafted--it is clear this sham increase is really only an advertisement for future money. It's a special legislative sneak preview of coming attractions. Unfortunately, like so many Hollywood movie trailers, the preview is much different than the actual film. In this case, we've been offered previews of a legislative ``Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm'' when the actual bill is more like a ``Nightmare on Elm Street.'' The sad truth is that the Republican Superfund appropriations bill is still mean and still extreme. Instead of trying to slash Superfund funding, however, the GOP is trying to turn the Superfund program on its head by replacing the polluter pays principle with a new program of paying the polluter. The extra $861 million--if it is ever really appropriated--will be set aside in a polluter's slush fund, where it could be used to fund the new polluter's entitlement program contained in H.R. 2500, the Republican's Superfund reform bill which was approved last November by the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Hazardous Materials. That bill replaces the polluter pays principle of the Superfund law with a requirement that taxpayer dollars and trust fund moneys be used to pay polluters rebate checks for cleaning up Superfund sites that they contaminated and may already have agreed to clean up themselves. Under the Republican proposal, Superfund will be tansformed into the Ed McMahon Polluter's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. Superfund polluters will be getting letters in the mail announcing the good news: Congratulations, polluters, you may have already won millions of dollars in fabulous cash rebates. All you have to do is wait for Congress to pass this Superfund ``Reform'' bill. Then, our Superfund Sweepstakes prize van will be pulling up to your corporate suite--with a big ol' rebate check in hand to pay you for cleaning up sites that you polluted! We should oppose such radical and extreme proposals. Those who polluted the environment with hazardous wastes should bear personal responsibility for their actions. During House floor consideration of this bill I will be offering an amendment later in the debate, along with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] that would preserve the current policy of polluter pays and prevent taxpayer dollars and Superfund trust fund moneys from being misused to pay rebate checks to polluters. Those who are liable for contaminating a Superfund site or have entered into a court-approved consent decree to pay the costs of such a cleanup should pay these costs themselves. At the same time, our amendment will not impair mixed funding for cleanups in those circumstances where EPA has reached a consent agreement with a polluter that a portion of the clearnup will be funded from Superfund moneys. This amendment has the support of the Clinton administration, as well as a broad range of environmental and public interest groups, including the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the Environmental Information Center. It will be one of the key environmental votes of the year, and we look forward to the floor debate on this critical issue. At this time, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. We should not be passing rules which transform appropriations bills into advertising promos for future appropriations bills. Let's be honest about how much funding Superfund will receive this year, and let's be honest about how these funds will be spent.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my good friend, the gentleman from California, that in fact we passed the bill 44 to nothing out of the Committee on Commerce reforming Superfund in 1994. And just to let the gentleman know, as he remembers, it died there in the waning bitter days of the end of the 1994 Congress. We had reformed Superfund on a bipartisan basis out of our committee on 1994, Democrat and Republican alike, unanimously. The larger question is where is this $850 million going to come from in sub- sequent years unless we lift the cap on the VA bill without increasing the deficit in other places?

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Communications Privacy and Consumer Empowerment Act. The issue of privacy in the information age and in particular, children's privacy protection, is quite timely as the Nation becomes ever more linked by communications networks, such as the Internet. It is important that we tackle these issues now before we travel down the information superhighway too far and realize perhaps we've made a wrong turn. Thomas Mann once said, ``A great truth is a truth whose opposite is also a great truth.'' The great truth of the Information Age is that the wire--and I use the term ``wire'' as shorthand for any telecommunications infrastructure such as phone, cable, computer, or wireless networks-- the wondrous wire that brings new services to homes, businesses, and schools will have a certain Dickensian quality to it: It will be the best of wires and the worst of wires. It can uplift society as well as debase it. It can allow people to telecommute to work and obtain distance learning classes. New digital technologies and other innovations allow corporations to become more efficient workers more productive, and businesses to conduct commerce almost effortlessly in digital dollars. This same technology however, will avail corporate America of the opportunity to track the clickstream of a citizen of the Net, to sneak corporate hands into a personal information cookie jar and use this database to compile sophisticated, highly personal consumer profiles of people's hobbies, buying habits, financial information, health information, who they contact or converse with, when and for how long. In short, that wondrous wire may also allow digital desperadoes to roam the electronic frontier unchecked by any high technology sheriff or adherence to any code of electronic ethics. It is this issue of hijacking personal information that we are concerned about and we are obviously concerned when kids are the target. The issue of child and adult privacy in an electronic environment, must find its ultimate solution in a carefully conceived and crafted combination of technology, industry action, government oversight or regulation. Without question, the issues posed by advances in digital communications technology are tremendously complex. Again, how best to protect kids is a complex issue. How to put teeth into privacy protections is also important to figure out. What may have worked for privacy protection or parental empowerment in the phone or cable or TV industry may not adequately serve as a model when these technologies converge. Therefore I believe we must pursue other alternatives. We must recognize that children's privacy is a subset of a parent's privacy rights. The bill I am introducing today is premised on the belief that regardless of the technology that consumers use, their privacy rights and expectations remain a constant. Whether they are using a phone, a TV clicker, a satellite dish, or a modem, every consumer should enjoy a Privacy Bill of Rights for the Information Age. These core rights are embodied in a proposal I have advocated for many years and I call it ``Knowledge, Notice and No.'' In short, consumers and parents should get the following three basic rights: First, knowledge that information is being collected about them. This is very important because digital technologies increasingly allow people to electronically glean personal information about users surreptitiously. I would note here that many Internet browsers, for example, use ``cookies''--a technology that can identify and tag an online user--unbeknownst to the user--and keep track of what Web sites a person visits. Second, adequate and conspicuous notice that any personal information collected is intended by the recipient for reuse or sale. Third, and, the right of a consumer to say ``no'' and to curtail or prohibit such reuse or sale of their personal information. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA] has been actively studying how to safeguard telecommunications-related personal information. ``Privacy and the NII,'' an analysis completed by NTIA in October of 1995, documented a number of areas where personal privacy protections varied depending upon which network carrier provided a telecommunications service. For example, the Cable Act requires cable operators to notify subscribers at the time of subscription of the operator's information practices and generally prohibits an operator from disclosure of personal data. Such protections, however do not extend to video services offered by DBS providers or wireless cable operators. Under the legislation I am introducing today, the FCC will be tasked with harmonizing the privacy protections across board so that strong, tough privacy policies exist regardless of the technology that a consumer uses to obtain a service. The bill is structured in a way that will first ascertain whether there are technological tools that can empower consumers and parents. The bill also requests the agencies to determine if there are industry standards and practices that embody this electronic Privacy Bill of Rights. Where technological tools don't exist, or where a particular industry refuses to embrace this code of electronic ethics in a way that solves the problem, then the Government is obliged to step in and reinforce protection of privacy rights. I implore the industry to act swiftly because the current situation is utterly unsustainable. The same libertarian quality that has stimulated such rapid growth of the Internet gravely threatens to cripple its promise. It is chaotic, free, and open, but has spawned an exponential increase in commercial voyeurism that is tearing privacy rights asunder. While Jack Kerouac would have a fine time joyriding from site to site on the World Wide Web, I believe that many, many citizens of the Net would be particularly troubled to find that their personal data--their usage of the World Wide Web itself--can be and is being tracked. At risk is consumer confidence in the medium. When consumer confidence plummets so will economic activity on the Internet. My legislation will establish ``Knowledge, Notice, and No'' as the goal and will require Government action where the technology or the industry fail to adequately protect consumers and kids.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, these are among the most cost-effective programs that the Federal Government has to offer. I think that the gentleman's amendment is very important and will be well received by the Federal Government. I thank the gentleman for propounding it. I rise in strong support for the amendment offered by my colleagues, Mr. Skaggs and Mr. Ehlers. This amendment to restore a small portion of the energy efficiency budget is key to our Nation's environmental health and economic future. The Skaggs-Ehlers amendment also cuts Government waste. The Skaggs- Ehlers amendment will return $3 million to the Federal Energy Management Program [FEMP]. FEMP's mission is to reduce energy use in the Federal Government, thus providing direct dollar returns to the taxpayer. FEMP provides at least $4 in lower Federal energy costs for every $1 spent. The Skaggs-Ehlers amendment will also help mitigate deep cuts in DOE's buildings efficiency research programs which have thus far yielded billions of dollars in energy savings, consumer savings, and pollution prevention. DOE research and development of advanced technologies in lighting and windows, for example, have improved consumer choice while providing Americans the opportunity to reduce their energy bills and improve their quality of life. These are critical needs and I look forward to working with the Department of Energy so that these additional funds will be targeted to these high results programs, such as lighting research and windows research. These programs have been among the most successful programs in the Federal Government. I serve as a cochair of the bipartisan Alliance to Save Energy and in that capacity I have become very familiar with Federal energy efficiency programs. These are some of the most successful--that's why they enjoy the strong support not only of the Alliance to Save Energy, but companies in the lighting and windows industries, environmental groups, and many others. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Regula, for his leadership on these issues. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the Skaggs-Ehlers amendment to cut Government waste and improve our environment.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time in which to close the debate. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is thank those who helped to bridge the gaps between the Democrats and Republicans in making this legislation possible; because, as a practical matter, this bill could not have become law, reached the floor today, without a tremendous amount of dedication and hard work on the part of many people. But a small number deserve to be especially singled out, and I begin with Linda Dallas Rich and David Cavicke and Kristy Strahman, who served the majority extremely well over this past year and a half in bringing this bill to this place. On the Democratic side, without the historic work of Consulea Washington and Jeff Duncan and Tim Forde, who dedicated personally this last year and a half to this particular piece of legislation, we could not have been here. And to Steve Cope, our exceptionally talented and exceedingly patient legislative counsel, the senior staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the direction of our very distinguished chairman, Arthur Levitt, who provided us with critically important assistance at key times over the last few months, all are to be commended for an extraordinary job. Finally, I doubt we would have reached the consensus without the good faith participation of the States. As proposals and ideas have been floated back and forth about how to change State laws and regulations, the States have always responded stoically, with good humor as well as with good faith. Neil Sullivan and Dee Harris have provided remarkable leadership throughout this difficult process. I have never been as proud of that group as I am here today. While there are not many legislative days left in this session of Congress, I still think that we have a good chance of seeing much of what we vote on there today enacted into law within the next couple of months. That remarkable prospect would not have been possible without the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Bliley, and of the ranking minority leader, the gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, of the Committee on Commerce. Their historic roles in securities legislation in very well known and appreciated. And especially, as has been noted several times before, to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, Jack Fields, of this subcommittee, who has worked long and hard to bring this historic piece of legislation here to the floor.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to its passage in the Senate and to the President's signature on this bill as well, which is the only appropriate ending to this.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MARKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in support of H.R. 3005, The Securities Amendments of 1996. Let me begin by congratulating the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and his counterpart, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the senior Member of the House and the ranking Democrat on the committee. Both directed that we put partisanship aside so that we could work on the three critically important public policy issues that underlie the legislation: the promotion of capital formation, the advancement of efficient markets, and the maintenance of the highest possible standards of investor protection. Their guidance helped us overcome numerous obstacles, any one of which could easily have upset the delicate compromises that brought us to the House floor today. Even though virtually everyone agrees that the policy objectives of titles I and II of The Securities Amendments of 1996 are extraordinarily important, until March of this year few thought it possible that we could overcome the deep differences as to how we could in fact achieve them. But because of the truly remarkable leadership of the distinguished gentleman from the State of Texas, Chairman Jack Fields, my good friend and colleague of the subcommittee, we were able to develop a consensus approach to these issues that ultimately allowed us to bring this bill to the floor. Indeed, Chairman Fields has been the singular driving force in the U.S. Congress behind the idea of comprehensively modernizing our system of securities regulation. His desire to promote capital formation and efficient securities markets is unsurpassed, but it should also be evident that he is committed to making sure that Federal and State securities laws continue to protect American investors from fraud and abuse. Indeed, he recognizes that the unparalleled success of our markets is grounded in the fact that the United States maintains the strongest and most profound commitment to investor protection of any country on Earth. Chairman Fields' thoroughgoing commitment to achieving this careful balanced played a crucial role in helping us to develop the historic package of reforms that we will be voting on today. His 2 years as chairman of the subcommittee passing historic telecommunications and now securities legislation will have him being looked back at as the one Republican who understood how to work in a bipartisan fashion during this 2-year period, this brief 2-year period that the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives. So I want to congratulate the gentleman so much for the incredible job which he has done during his tenure as the chairman of this subcommittee. It is indeed remarkable and historic in fact, which is not an overstatement. Comprehensive financial modernization, as some of our colleagues are painfully aware, can be tauntingly elusive as a goal. Yet in the last 3 months, Chairman Fields has given us all a case study about how to get there. When we step back from the details and examine the Bliley amendment from the broad perspective, two historic qualities stand out. The first is how far we have come in a relatively short time. Six months ago we were on the eve of a huge ideological battle confronted with proposals that in our judgment would have caused considerable damage to markets, to companies, and to investors. Included among them were proposals to preempt virtually every aspect of independent State securities regulation, to repeal suitability requirements that protect institutional investors and deter deceitful conduct, to repeal the Williams Act, which could have encouraged a whole new round of hostile takeovers, to eliminate virtually all margin requirements, which could have fueled all sorts of undesirable speculation in the stock markets at the worst possible time when the markets were already at record highs. There were several other issues as well. In every one of these areas, we have worked diligently to make extraordinary improvements to the original proposals. The results are contained in title I. Collectively they represent a balance and a sensible, rather than a rigid and ideological approach to modernization. More important, title I is historic because it includes a truly unprecedented legislative effort to modernize and to carefully reallocate important aspects of Federal and State securities laws. Without in any way compromising our longstanding commitment to maintaining the highest possible standard of investor protection, as anyone involved in its drafting knows, modernizing State securities laws is an extraordinarily sensitive and complex subject. An editorial in this morning's Boston Globe, a copy of which is attached to the statement I will submit for the Record, captured this delicacy. While it acknowledges that, quote, There is a broad agreement among the industry and regulators that some loosening is in order, but Congress must take care as it balances the sometimes conflicting interests of free markets and the reality of those who would exploit them. I have always agreed with that view personally and as a result have given a tremendous amount of thought to this particular section of the legislation, especially careful consideration of this section was necessary in part because the States have historically filled such a profound and irreplaceable role in protecting small investors from fraud and abuse. Two years ago, I was deeply honored to receive an investor protection award from the Association of State Securities Administrators, the first non-NASAA North American Securities Administrator member to ever receive the award. I said at that time the States are the ones who work the front lines and serve as the Nation's early warning system for financial fraud. You are the ones who witness most closely the terrible consequences of these frauds, not just the frustration and the anger of having been robbed, but the heartache and the tragedy of dreams that have been stolen, dreams about sending a child to college or about planning for retirement years. Over the years, your extraordinary and unwavering commitment to promoting the interests of small investors has made NASA a powerful and respected and necessary presence on Capitol Hill. The Bliley amendment and the committee report that accompanies explicitly provide that the States continue to have available to them the full arsenal of powers needed to investigate and to enforce laws against fraud and to continue their ability to protect the small investor of this country. Similarly, the committee report also makes clear that nothing in this legislation alters or affects in any way any State statutory or common laws against fraud or deceit, including private actions brought pursuant to such laws. Such a provision was essential to prevent this legislation from getting caught up in the disputes that surround that issue. In several other ways, title I to the Bliley amendment largely strikes the proper balance between promoting efficiency and growth while ensuring integrity and fairness. The second historic quality about the Bliley amendment is that it includes the first significant proposal to affect the regulation of the mutual fund industry in more than a generation. I am proud to have joined with Chairman Fields and Chairman Bliley, Mr. Dingell, and others as an original cosponsor of these proposals, and I am delighted that Members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs have also taken a very strong interest in them. Most important, this part of the legislation recognizes the fundamentally national character of the fund industry by assigning exclusive responsibility for the routine review of mutual fund offering documents and related sales material to the SEC and the NASD. Title II of the Bliley amendment also encourages further innovation in this industry by allowing for the first time documents known as advertising prospectuses, and for modestly liberalizing the rules for fund of funds. At the same time, however, the Bliley amendment also recognizes the extraordinary and rapidly growing importance of mutual fund investments to the financial health of average Americans by continuing to permit States to investigate sales practice abuses and other types of fraudulent or deceitful activity. In addition, the bill recognizes the critical challenge facing the Securities and Exchange Commission, which must maintain its successful record of overseeing the fund industry at a time when mutual funds are growing exponentially and the industry is becoming more diverse and complex. Thus, the Bliley amendment gives the Securities and Exchange Commission the authority to obtain information it must have if it is to determine accurately whether funds are in compliance with the investor protection provisions of the Federal law. This provision has been carefully negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the fund industry, and it is an essential part of the balance of the bill which we have put together today which ensures that the information is there which guarantees investor protection. Mr. Speaker, I cannot again praise the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] enough for their leadership and to single out the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] here near the end of his final year in Congress for his special work in putting together this legislation today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by thanking those who worked tirelessly to bridge the gap that divided Democrats and Republicans on these important issues. Before concluding, I also believe a brief comment is due about the fact that title III has been included as part of the Bliley amendment. I understand that this legislation has already passed the House, and is being included with this bill today in order to facilitate a conference on the subject. and I am well aware of the unnecessary funding fights that have hampered and demoralized the SEC in recent years. But I believe the administration has raised important concerns about the implications of the authorization bill that we need to explore, I am committed to working with the administration to see if we can somehow reconcile the important competing policy considerations that relate to this issue. As a practical matter, this bill could not have reached the floor today without the tremendous commitment of time and energy on the part of our staff: Linda Dallas Rich and David Cavicke, for the Republicans; Consuela Washington, Jeff Duncan, and Timothy Forde, for the Democrats; and Steve Cope, our exceptionally talented and exceedingly patient legislative counsel. Senior staff of the SEC, under the direction and with the encouragement of Chairman Arthur Levitt, also provided us with critically important assistance at key times over the last few months. All are to be commended for an extraordinary job. Finally, I doubt that we would have reached this consensus without the good faith participation of the States. As proposals and ideas have been floated back and forth about how to change State laws and regulations, the States have always responded stoically--with good humor as well as with good faith. Neil Sullivan and Dee Harris have provided remarkable leadership throughout this difficult process. I have never been as proud of this group as I am today. While there are not many legislative days left in this session of Congress, I still think that we have a good chance of seeing much of what we vote on here today enacted into law within a few months. That remarkable prospect would not have been possible without the leadership of Chairman Bliley, Chairman Fields, Ranking Democrat Dingell, and the steadfast support of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I look forward to working with them to secure the bill's passage through the Senate and its signature by the President. Mr. Speaker, include for the Record the following article. [From the Boston Globe, June 18, 1996] Insecurity Regulation The Massachusetts congressional delegation will do well to listen to the concerns of Secretary of State William Galvin as it contemplates legislation loosening regulation of securities dealers. Although there is broad agreement among the industry and regulators that some loosening is in order--the National American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) hopes that a suitable bill can be drafted during the current session of Congress--Galvin wants a more thorough review that would likely push action into the next session. Among the issues Galvin and his NASAA colleagues agree are troubling would be relaxing rules for unlicensed broker employees or sales agents who may use high-powered selling tactics to entice the unwary into unwise investments. Many such sales practices are engaged in by smaller brokerage firms, involving small corporations with fewer shares, which create markets that can be volatile and even treacherous. These companies do not attract the institutional interest that is important with larger stocks in establishing more financially credible pricing. The US Securities and Exchange Commission has historically relied on states to supplement its enforcement activities against shady sales practices by concentrating on these smaller brokerages. The states' task is complicated enough already by the tendency of victims to be embarrassed at having been taken in. Galvin is worried that Congress will prevent states from taking up even those cases where victims do protest. Those worries deserve the attention of the industry, whose preponderantly ethical members are injured by the misdeeds of a few slick dealers. Congress must take care as it balances the sometimes conflicting interests of free markets and the reality of those who would exploit them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Bliley. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the chairman of the subcommittee who put so much work into this bill. (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. China is an atomic Al Capone with a radioactive racketeering rap sheet a mile long. Each passing day brings new details about Beijing's illegal nuclear proliferation activities. China sold ring magnets to Pakistan that are important in the production of material for nuclear weapons. China sold cruise missiles to Iran which can be used to deliver nuclear weapons. China sold nuclear-capable M-11 missiles to Pakistan that now may be assembled and ready to go. Just last week, media reports indicated that the missiles were probably ready to be fitted with nuclear warheads. Beijing's response to American inquiries about its illegal transfers can be summed up by 3 words: Obfuscate and proliferate. China's rulers have provided plenty of well-timed nods, winks, private toasts, clarifications, and assurances. But they continue to sell sophisticated nuclear weapon-related equipment to the world's troublemakers. If China wants to be the international Kmart for nuclear weapons, then the United States needs to tell them that they have to shop other places in this would if they want American goods.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at promoting the study of science among our Nation's youth. My legislation would reauthorize the National Science Scholarship Program which was originally supported by a bipartisan majority of both Houses and signed by President Bush in 1990. It would reward outstanding students who have made a commitment to pursue a degree in the sciences. By awarding these students an academic scholarship, this legislation will help families offset the escalating costs of higher education while facilitating student interest in a field which has become increasingly important to our technologically based society. In addition, the legislation would require at least one-half of the scholarships be awarded to female students, promoting the participation of women in an area which has traditionally been dominated by men. Never before has the need to have a work force well versed in the sciences been so critical to our Nation's success. Just 100 years ago, 10 of the 12 largest companies in America were natural resource companies. They were businesses whose success depended on raw materials such as cotton, tobacco, and steel. Today, our economy is drastically different. As we enter the 21st century, the 10 largest and most rapidly growing industries in the world are brainpower industries: microelectronics, biotech, material-science, telecommunications. They are industries which have succeeded because of the ingenuity and intelligence of their employees. If America hopes to keep these brainpower industries based in the United States, we need to provide employers with a work force which is technologically literate. My legislation addresses this need by encouraging students to pursue science-based careers. The National Science Scholarship Program was initiated in 1990 under the Excellence in Mathematics, Science and Engineering Education Act to provide financial assistance for two extraordinary science students from each congressional district. President Bush originated the legislation and it was approved with wide bipartisan support. As he signed the National Science Scholarship Program into law, President Bush said of the program: This new program will provide an important vehicle for demonstrating the Nation's commitment to excellence in science, mathematics, and engineering achievement and to the recognition of excellent young people who are pursuing higher education and careers in those fields. Although the program was relatively small in size, costing only $4.4 million annually, its impact was large as thousands of students across the country received up to $5,000 per year to help defray the costs of college. One of the key elements of the National Science Scholarship Program's success is the provision that at least half of the scholarship recipients be women. Although the conditions for female scientists have greatly improved since the turn of the century when Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, America's first female graduate of medical school was forced to go to England to practice her profession, the number of women entering this historically male dominated field is still relatively small. Today women receive 54 percent of all bachelor's degrees, yet they earn little more than 40 percent of all B.A.'s in science fields and less than 15 percent of engineering degrees. Over the last 10 years, the percentage of bachelors degrees awarded to women in the field of computer science actually decreased from 35 to 30 percent. The National Science Scholarship Program actively works to eliminate this disparity by encouraging young women to pursue careers in sciences at the very age when a disproportionate number of well-qualified girls and women give up on potential careers in science and engineering. Despite the success of this program, it was merged into a larger, less focused program at the end of the last Congress. In the process, its authorization was repealed, appropriations cut, and science priority eliminated. The 50-50 split between men and women scholars and the district-by-district distribution of scholarships were also dropped. In short, the program disappeared. As a result, almost 2,000 intelligent, highly motivated students have been denied access to much- needed scholarship money. In a post-GATT, post-NAFTA world, we cannot afford to create barriers to young scientists realizing their full potential. This is why I am introducing legislation which would reauthorize the National Science Scholarship Program. As we enter the information age, let us do so as a community which is prepared to meet the challenges of the next millennium. Let us support our young scientists by encouraging them to pursue careers in science fields. Let us reauthorize the National Science Scholarship Program.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim. The aim of the Republican Party is to reduce the deficit. They have forgotten what they were aiming at, and that is why the freshmen Republican foot soldiers have been revolting against their Gingrichian generals over the last 24 hours because the budget they have here on the floor increases the deficit. They have forgotten their Holy Grail of reducing the Federal deficit. And why? Why? As the new majority leader in the Senate said today, because we do not want to touch the tax breaks for the rich. So, in other words, they have given up on the Holy Grail of reducing the deficit in order to protect the crown jewel of tax breaks for the rich. Now, I think if the American people understand this debate, they would want a no tonight on this Republican rejection of a balanced budget.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, these are very simple instructions. It says, say yes to Kennedy-Kassebaum. Say yes to portability. Say yes to a ban on preexisting conditions. That is what our instructions here today are to the negotiators. Let us get this done. It says no to medical savings accounts and no to medical malpractice caps. It says no to all of the special interest feeding frenzy which is now building up around this bill. American families are concerned about job lock; they cannot move with their medical insurance. They are afraid that they have preexisting conditions that will make it impossible for them to ever get new insurance, so we are trying to protect them. But now what happens is all the special interests ride in with this very important bill and they try to turn it into a goodie grab bag for all of their special interest concerns. Kennedy-Kassebaum is not perfect, but it is a very good bill; and it is what the American people want: portability, preexisting conditions protected against. My mother always said that half a loaf is better than none. I support Kennedy-Kassebaum, even though it is really a couple of slices and I know that the American people want a whole loaf so that they have not only health insurance which is accessible but also affordable. But we cannot get that done this year. There will be no bill. Unfortunately, the leadership, the House and Senate leadership has taken a couple of good, wholesome slices of health insurance reform and slapped a whole lot of extraneous junk food on top, creating a health care hoagie of medical savings accounts, caps on medical malpractice awards and other unhealthy additives. These anchovies and olives and onions are certain to tickle the taste buds of a very few special interests but cause heartburn for millions of consumers. Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate Republican leadership has taken a noncontroversial health care bill and turned it into a special interest feeding frenzy. That is wrong, just plain wrong. We should put the needs of American families above the demands of the gluttons of Gucci Gulch outside the Committee on Ways and Means.